Thomas Huth, on Fri 11 Dec 2015 15:32:48 +0100, wrote: > So maybe it's better to do smaller steps instead: Would it for example > make sense to split the whole series into two parts - first a series > that does all the preparation and cleanup patches. And then once that > has been reviewed and merged, send the second series that adds the real > new IPv6 code.
Ok, that's what we already have: patches 1-9 are refactoring and support, and 10-18 are ipv6 code. Samuel
